We know she's got a lot of time on her hands because she had to cancel her social gathering (at the former slave plantation, remember?) and since that moment, Ani's ticket sales have taken a nose dive, she's like Michelle Shocked these days (Shocked blew her career by attacking gay people).

Friday, March 21, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, the assault on
Anbar continues, the much maligned RT covered the anniversary of the
Iraq War this week who else can make that claim?, burn pits are not
being dealt with by the VA, and much more.

With heavy heart and renewed determination, the officers, staff, and
affiliates of U.S. Labor Against the War mark the eleventh anniversary
of the outbreak of the illegal U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. For
many Americans, the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq at the
end of 2011 marked the end of U.S. involvement with, and responsibility
towards, the Iraqi people. We disagree.
Even though our combat forces are out, the war continues to have
catastrophic effects in Iraq, and for the families of tens of thousands
of U.S. veterans. Millions of Iraqis grieve the loss of loved ones
killed by the U.S. military, while Americans mourn the deaths of
thousands of our soldiers.
The sectarian violence wracking Iraq has its immediate origins in the
ignorant and hubristic policies imposed by U.S. occupation forces. The
sectarian factionalism encouraged by the U.S. occupation has paralyzed
the Iraqi political process, presided over by a dysfunctional
government. Depleted uranium from U.S. munitions is a continuing,
widespread, and profound threat to the Iraqi environment and people, and
to returning U.S. troops. Iraqi workers, 80% of whom work in the public
sector – the oil industry, transportation, heavy manufacturing,
hospitals, schools, ports, social services - are forbidden from
organizing unions and engaging in collective bargaining because the U.S.
kept in force the 1987 Saddam Hussein decree that prohibits public
sector workers from organizing unions. All this and more is the legacy
of a war that has not ended for Iraqis, for which the American people
and our government must take responsibility.
The war, now officially over for more than two years, continues to have
catastrophic effects in the U.S. as well. Our Iraq war veterans suffer
loss of limbs and eyes, long-term traumatic brain injury, and
post-traumatic stress disorder. They suffer from homelessness,
unemployment, and suicide disproportionate to their numbers in society.
The economic wellbeing of the country is threatened by the overhang of
debt created by the reckless funding of the war and the distorted
federal budget priorities that fund U.S. militarized foreign policy,
instead of devoting those resources to urgent domestic human needs.
As we reflect on the terrible continuing effects of the Iraq war, we in
U.S. Labor Against the War commit ourselves to continuing and deepening
our partnerships within the labor movement and with peace, veterans,
and community organizations. We will continue to work with our partners
in the Iraqi labor movement and Iraqi civil society. We will not turn
away from our longstanding commitments to peace and justice in Iraq, and
for our veterans and the American people. We are determined to end our
country’s militarized foreign policy, no matter where our government
seeks to apply it, and to promote true security for our people through
universal education, health care, and modern infrastructure.
These are our commitments as we mark the eleventh anniversary of the U.S. war in Iraq.

Another who wasn't silent? Abby Martin. She did cover the illegal war's anniversary. She spoke with Iraq War veteran Ryan Endicott about the war on her show Breaking The Set (RT -- here for the episode at Hulu). Excerpt.Abby Martin: In a speech you gave in 2009 called "Just Another
Tuesday," you recount your experience as an infantryman in Iraq and that
you were once punished for arresting a man instead of killing him. Can
you expand on this?Ryan Endicott: Well, you know, I was on post when this Iraqi came
through my door in the post, I was at the Government Center in Ramadi
which is the capital of the Anbar Province where Falluja is. And when
this man came into my post, at that point, I had been standing my post
and somehow he had gotten through all the other security measures and
gotten to my post. And so, you know, when I arrested him and put him --
detained him, my command told me at that point that it was my fault that
I should have killed him. He was in an area that is completely
restricted for civilians. No questions asked, it doesn't matter if he
had a gun, that's out the door, the fact is, I should have killed him.
And you know, for me during that time period, that was really tough for
me to deal with it. I had to go through all the repercussions and
treated as though what I did was wrong and, you know, how I was called a
"girl" and all sorts of pejorative terms around this situation. And so
after that situation, what I think is really important is that this is
just one instance of that. And like how many soldiers across this
country are coming down with orders from command telling them to commit
these crimes, telling them to kill people -- who don't have weapons --
specifically because of where they are specifically because of how
they've impacted this sort of post. And so what is shows is there's a
whole policy around the idea that-that soldiers can kill or can murder
someone that doesn't have a weapon and that's totally explainable by the
command.

We thank the Special Adviser for his ongoing efforts in raising
awareness on genocide and in preventing this crime. It has been said
that significant progress has been made in the prevention and punishment
of genocide - but recent events have shown that we still have a long
road ahead of us. The current situation in Iraq is a clear example. It
was described as rapidly plummeting towards genocide.

Since the US-invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the De-Ba’athification
process, attacks based on discrimination and sectarianism have become
major elements in the country’s politics. This tensed situation
escalated at the turn of the year 2013/2014 with a military operation
undertaken by the Iraqi government in the province of Al-Anbar, under
the pretext of combating terrorists.

Mr. Special Adviser, an important element of the prevention of genocide
is the identification of the early warning signs of this crime.

Signs have shown for long enough now that the Iraqi forces are
targeting a certain religious group. The authority promotes domination
over the government by those affiliated to its own religious beliefs,
while treating the opposition with utmost hostility and brutality. It
has become obvious that the onslaught against supposed terrorists is a
cover for the annihilation of the group opposed to the increasingly
discriminating policies of the current authorities in Iraq.

The acts of the government find their roots in official speeches which
are filled with sectarian rhetoric. Such rhetoric clearly shows the
intent to eradicate a certain group.
This raises serious concerns as the situation clearly fulfils the elements of the crime of genocide.

We would like you, Mr. Special Advisor, to consider this alarming issue in your work.
We also wonder why, inspite of these distressing events, the UN has not
yet taken firm action to relieve the plight of the victims of the Iraqi
government’s attacks. The UN must not wait the occurrence of a
situation similar to what happened in Rwanda.
We therefore plead that the situation in Iraq be addressed immediately
by the Council. In particular, we call on the Special Adviser to
urgently take all adequate measures.
I thank you for your attention.

The issue does need to be addressed immediately, the people of Anbar are
being terrorized. This was supposed to be a 'brief' campaign but it
started December 30th and still isn't over -- despite the fact that
national elections are supposed to take place next month.

These are War Crimes that Nouri's committing but noted anti-Sunni
Patrick Cockburn can't call him out on that. He can smear Sunnis as
killed -- he can does in his most recent article
-- but the most he can offer to criticize his would-be lover Nouri
al-Maliki is that "the government" (not Nouri, some other head of the
Iraqi government that the world missed) released a fake video showing
they were in control of Falluja when the footage was actually of
Afghanistan.

Patrick Cockburn's desire to have his ass joined to Nouri's cock is mind
blowing. But he needs to stop pretending he's reporting. He slams the
protest movement as a front for terrorists forgetting to note that his
love master Nouri killed children last April.

Even when his biased mouth managed to leave Nouri's crotch long
enough to report on Hawija (long after the massacre), Lie Face Cock Burn
couldn't tell his readers that the dead included 8 children.

Apparently, when you're Paddy Cock Burn, you know better than UNICEF.

Or else you just don't care when children are killed.

Paddy Cock Burn has been allowed by the British newspaper the
Independent (ha!) to conduct a war against the Sunnis in print. He's
gone after them repeatedly and lied repeatedly. When he hasn't lied,
he's left out major points that would demonstrate Nouri was a criminal
thug.

Here's an amazing though for the US government.

Instead of supplying the dictator Nouri with weapons, why didn't you
demand that he nominate people to head the security ministries?

Security doesn't fall apart over night.

In March 2010, Nouri and his State of Law lost the parliamentary
elections to Ayad Allwi and Iraqiya. But Nouri refused to step down.

Worthless US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill was caught by surprise (while
dreaming of being taken by surprise by Nouri) but US General Ray
Odierno had been asking repeatedly that the US government figure out how
they would respond if this happened?

No one but Odierno thought it was possible.

Contrasted with everyone else in the administration in 2010, Odierno looks like a genius.

Nouri refused to step down and brought the government to an eight-month
stand-still (this is the political stalemate). The US government backed
Nouri up on this (so did the Iranian government) and Barack ordered US
officials in Iraq to broker a contract (The Erbil Agreement) to go
around the votes of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Constitution in order
that loser Nouri could get a second term.

Had the Constitution been followed, he wouldn't be prime minister right
now. But since the Constitution wasn't followed, since he got his
second term via The Erbil Agreement, he didn't have to abide the
Constitution which dictates someone is named prime minister-designate
and then has 30 days to form a Cabinet -- not a partial one, a full
Cabinet.

Nouri didn't do that.

He refused to nominate people to head the security ministries.

If he had and Parliament had confirmed someone as, for example, Minister
of Defense, then only Parliament could remove them and this person
would run the Ministry as he or she saw fit.

By refusing to nominate anyone to Parliament, Nouri violated the
Constitution and it was a power-grab -- as Ayad Allawi noted in real
time while the dumb ass Western press instead wrote that Nouri would
nominate people for those positions in a few weeks.

A few weeks?

Back in July, 2012 Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed,
"Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting
power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions,
including the ministers of defense, interior and national security,
while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." That didn't change. He still hasn't nominated any people to head the security ministries.As 2010 drew to an end, he was supposed to fill those posts. He didn't.And then we had 2011 when the
violence should have been alarming but no one wanted to see the signs.
Then came 2012 and we were still Paul Revere here on the violence but
no one wanted to see it. In 2013, the violence reached 2008 levels. Suddenly, the press was interested.The increase did not happen overnight.It did happen slowly and it did happen as Nouri failed to fill those security posts.So instead of promising him (in the
November 1st White House visit) that he would get various weapons, the
White House should have been insisting he fill those positions. Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi wrote this week:

The decline in the security situation in Iraq has occurred as part of
the general decline in different aspects of life. If a government
official is to be held accountable, then it should be Al-Maliki due to
his wide constitutional power. The first step towards genuine change has
to be the departure of Al-Maliki to allow someone more qualified to
tackle the security issue head-on. That person needs to believe in peace
and be willing to make tough decisions affecting every aspect of life,
including the political, economic ,social, cultural and legal.

The US government had no interest in building democracy in Iraq. That's
Barack Obama as surely as it is Bully Boy Bush. Barack spat on
democracy when he refused to honor the results of the 2010 parliamentary
elections.

Since
2003, the United States has invested an enormous
amount in Iraq, and the future of Iraq remains of
great importance to the interests of the United
States and our allies. Iraq has replaced Iran as the
second leading oil exporter in OPEC, and projections
of future low oil prices are highly contingent upon
the continued growth of Iraqi oil exports.
Remembering that virtually every postwar American
recession was preceded by an increase in oil prices,
Iraq and its oil production remain critical to the
prosperity of the United States.Kevin states of Pollack, "This was
his first expressed concern: the future of oil
production. He then proceeded to address the
resurgence of al Qaeda and other issues in Iraq."

What to do?

We tell truth here.

Kevin's wrong. Those weren't Pollack's first remarks. In fairness to
Kevin, that's probably what the Congressional Record reflects and that's
problem that needs to be addressed. Once upon a time, the record
served a purpose. Today, it needs to be accurate.

If Kevin consulted, the record, that's why he's wrong. If, however, he
just went to Brookings to grab Kenneth Pollack's prepared remarks
(written remarks 'submitted for the record'), then I'm less likely to
cut him slack.

I was at that hearing. It was December 12th. Pollack actually said a lot of smart things and we quoted some of it in the December 16th snapshot. I honestly would have let him slide on the oil remarks (had he made them) because he was focusing on more important things.

But he didn't make the oil remarks. They're in the written remarks
submitted. But he didn't read his written statement but instead spoke
of al Qaeda in Iraq in his opening remarks.

He never said, in the entire hearing, what Kevin quotes him saying.

He had intended to, judging by his written remarks, but more pressing
issues forced him to speak of the political issues and much more.

A long with the fact that we have to be truthful, we also have to be
fair. I've knocked Pollack and others at Brookings many times and I'm
sure I will again but I was at that hearing, I know what happened, I can
pull out my notes and I know Kenneth Pollack did not open with oil. It
would be unfair to him for me to pretend otherwise.

If Kevin got it from the Congressional Record, he (and everyone else)
has every right to assume that is an accurate record. However, it's
not. He did not make those opening remarks, a correct record would note
those remarks were submitted for the record but also note what he
stated.

JUDICIAL WATCH, July 17,2003
Title: Cheney Energy Task Force Documents Feature Map of Iraqi Oilfields
Author: Judicial Watch staffFOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS, January 2004
Title: “Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy:Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil”
Author: Michael KlareFaculty Evaluators: James Carr, Ph.D., Alexandra Von Meier, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Cassie Cypher, Shannon ArthurDocuments turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce
Department as a result of the Sierra Club’s and Judicial Watch’s Freedom
of Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney
Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines,
refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and
gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The
documents, dated March 2001, also feature maps of Saudi Arabian and
United Arab Emirates oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker
terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and
gas development projects in each country that provide information on
the project’s costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion
date.Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September
11 confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the
dictates of the energy industry. According to Judicial Watch President,
Tom Fitton, “These documents show the importance of the Energy Task
Force and why its operations should be open to the public.”

Isobel Coles (Reuters) reports,
"Kurdistan will export
100,000 barrels of oil per day through the Iraqi pipeline
network from April 1 as a 'gesture of goodwill' while
negotiations with Baghdad continue, a statement from the
region's prime minister said on Thursday." I have so much to say on
that issue including US Vice President Joe Biden's broken promise to
Iraq's President Jalal Talabani. We don't have the time or space to
unpack it now. Maybe next week. And maybe we can note MP Susan Saad then as well. Ruth covered the Jewish Archives at her site Thursday night. I hope we can cover that next week.

Today, John Glaser (Antiwar.com) observes, "The U.S.-backed dictator Nouri al-Maliki is ruling the country with an
iron fist, putting his political opponents in jail, torturing prisoners,
crushing free speech, and so on. The advocates of “democracy promotion”
in Iraq, somehow, don’t have to answer for the fact that the Iraqi
parliament is now considering imposing new laws that would allow girls
to be forced into arranged marriages from the age of nine."

And with that as a backdrop, Iraq plans to hold parliamentary elections
April 30th. Supposedly, elections will take place in all 19 provinces
(the KRG increased by 1 province last week). But Iraqi elections, to be
legitimate, must include the displaced. And they have in the past. In
fact, Nouri's attempt to short change refugees out of the country in
2009 pushed the parliamentary elections back to 2010 (Vice President
Tareq al-Hashemi used his veto power to sink the bill). Now it's been
announced that Iraqi refugees in Syria will not be allowed to vote. It
is stated that Syria is just too dangerous for a polling station.
Syria, Jordan and Lebanon remain the three countries with the highest
number of Iraqi refugees as a result of their sharing borders with Iraq
(and as a result of governments like the US leaving them stranded --
both in terms of ridiculous regulations and, in Syria, by closing down
the means the refugees had to apply for admission to the US).

[. . ] Al-Maliki began the effective demolition of the National Unity
government he headed by having an arrest warrant issued for
Vice-President Tareq Al-Hashimi, a Sunni. Hashimi was accused of
involvement in death squads. Helped by Kurds, he fled the country, only
to be tried in his absence and found guilty. Al-Maliki pretended at
the time that the prosecution was important because no one should be
able to escape punishment for past crimes. But this argument was fatally
weakened by the presence in his government of Shiite politicians who
were equally suspected of involvement in the inter-communal violence
that had threatened to tear the country apart. Besides, however terrible
the crimes committed by all parties in Iraq, the country’s future could
only be ensured by reconciliation. Iraq desperately needed to put its
dark past behind and look to a brighter and more prosperous future.Unfortunately
Al-Maliki hardly tried to convince skeptical Sunni politicians and
voters that the prosecution of Hashimi was not motivated by the fact
that the vice-president was a Sunni. That this was indeed the reality
has since become even more apparent as Shia legislators have moved to
exclude former and serving Sunni politicians, including former Finance
Minister Rafie Al-Issawi from standing in next month’s elections. Former
interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a Shiite, and leader of the
National Iraqi Alliance, has himself warned that in the light of these
moves against Sunni politicians, as well as the deteriorating security
situation in the country, the vote cannot go ahead.

The Independent High Electoral Commission,
or IHEC, the authority that is supposed to prepare Iraq for elections
and run electoral procedures, such as voter registration and the actual
voting, recently decided to ban a number of politicians from competing
in the elections. These were independent Shiite Muslim MP, Sabah
al-Saedi, Shiite Muslim MP, Jawad al-Shuhaili, who is aligned with the
Sadrist bloc, MP Haider al-Mulla from the mostly-Sunni Muslim Iraqiya
bloc, MP Rafea al-Isawi, also a Sunni Muslim from the Iraqiya bloc and
one of the country’s most senior Sunni Muslim politicians as well as a
former MP, Mithal al-Alousi, who made headlines in 2004 as one of the
first Iraqi politicians to visit Israel and who previously headed the
de-Baathification commission.

IHEC says the reason for the ban on these politicians is
because they have violated the rule about good conduct. However there
are clearly some problems with this clause – many local legal and
constitutional experts have already said that it is too general and that
it could be used in myriad ways by the unscrupulous.

Iraqi lawyer Munir Haddad, who is perhaps best known
outside the country for his time as a judge, presiding over the trial of
former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, told NIQASH: “Iraqi MPs should have
been more careful when they voted on this article. It’s not clearly formulated enough.”

“This paragraph is very general and it can be interpreted
any way a person wants,” adds judge Abdul-Raheem al- Ukaili, who
formerly worked with Iraq’s Commission on Integrity.
“Unfortunately IHEC has interpreted this paragraph in an arbitrary way
and it has been used against politicians who are well known for opposing
the government.”

Indeed it seemed to many that the “bad behaviour” these
MPs had undertaken simply involved publicly criticizing Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki or his allies.

“Politicians who speak about corruption in the government
are now people with bad reputations,” one of the banned MPs, al-Alousi,
complained to NIQASH. “There is a deliberate plan to silence al-Maliki’s
opponents and to ruin democracy in Iraq. We are going to file a lawsuit
at the Supreme Federal Court to defend our rights and we hope this
court won’t bow to political pressure,” he argued.

"Niqash attempts to explain it"? There's no byline. An Iraqi offering the above has cause to worry.

One aspect not dealt with is the so-called Independent High Electoral
Commission. No one wanted to pay attention -- even though Nouri had
previously attempted to take it over -- when certain people were nixed
from serving. No one wanted to pay attention as Nouri stacked the
commission.

Despite his threats and his bullying, despite the fact that it was clear
his attempts to take over the independent banks had already succeeded,
no one wanted to pay attention.

In his second media appearance since he announced his intention to
quit politics, Iraqi Shi’ite leader Moqtada Al-Sadr called on the people
of Iraq to participate in the forthcoming parliamentary elections to
prevent “thieves” and “beneficiaries” from gaining power. Sadr has been an increasingly fierce critic of embattled Iraqi Prime
Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, denouncing him earlier this month as a
“dictator and a tyrant.” He has called for a series of anti-government
protests each Monday, saying the Iraqi electorate should ignore “the
negligence and disregard of some politicians” and participate in the
forthcoming legislative elections, scheduled for April 30. “If elections are held without the participation of patriotic and
loyal voters, the unfit will inevitably make it to power,” Sadr said.

Moqtada al-Sadr remains Nouri's most formidable rival at present. Kitabat notes
that Moqtada delivered a sermon today decrying the elimination and
exclusion of candidates and calling for the people to vote and make
their voices heard.

In the article, Nouri's spokesperson insists Nouri hasn't taken a position on it.Yes, he has.By letting it come to a vote, he took a position.By forwarding it to Parliament, he took a position.It's also said that he voted for when he brought it up for a vote in the Cabinet. And, as Middle East Confidential notes, "It was proposed by Iraq’s justice minister, Head of the Fadila bloc,
which has seven seats in the parliament and is a strong ally of the
prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki."So let's cut the nonsense.

It's a strong column. There was a column I wanted to highlight. I read
it this morning on the plane. I've got 300 Iraqi newspaper pages in my
browser and can't find it and don't have time to go through everyone of
them.

It was most likely Kitabat or Iraq Times. The writer favors the law.
The writer feels Iraq is being shamed. I appreciate the writer's
feelings, but Iraq should be shamed on this. The writer argued that if
the age of nine (or eight) for marriage was too low, it could be changed
to the onset of puberty.

Most countries and most people around the world would tell you that is still too young.

But let's set that aside real quick to note two other things in the law.
First, stripping mothers of their rights, custodial rights. How is
that good? How is that helpful?

And I'm not understanding how forced sex or rape is beneficial to a husband. It's surely not beneficial to a wife.

WeCopWatch (Indybay Media -- link is text and video) adds:The City of Oakland has agreed to pay Scott Olsen $4.5 million to
compensate him for devastating brain injuries he suffered when an
Oakland Police officer shot him in the head with a “less lethal”
munition on October 25, 2011, during a demonstration in support of
Occupy Oakland. The lead filled “bean bag” round, fired from a 12 gauge
shotgun, shattered Mr. Olsen’s skull and permanently destroyed part of
his brain. The settlement in Olsen v. City of Oakland, 3:12-cv-06333, is
pending final approval by the Oakland City Council. Mr. Olsen was
represented by attorneys Jim Chanin, Rachel Lederman, and Julie Houk.
(Ten-minute Olsen case video below.)

As we rush to wrap up, Patrick Murphy's MSNBC talk show (Taking The Hill) will address a number of issues this Sunday:

WASHINGTON - In a letter to U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Eric K. Shinseki today, U.S. Sens. Tom
Udall (D-N.M.), a member of the Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs Appropriations subcommittee, and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), ranking
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pressed the VA for
answers regarding its failure to diligently and expeditiously implement
the Open Air Burn Pit Registry as mandated under Section 201 of PL
112-260, which Udall and Corker coauthored and introduced in 2011."As you know from previous correspondence on this matter, the Open
Air Burn Pit Registry was designed to identify and monitor veterans who
had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who were exposed to toxic
pollutants released by open air burn pits," Udall and Corker wrote.
"This delay is deeply concerning, particularly when similar registries
exist within the United States government. The lack of urgency and
communication from the VA is even more troubling. Our veterans,
Congress, and the public deserve to know why the Open Air Burn Pit
Registry has been delayed and when it will be completed."

"In an
effort to address this failure, we ask that you provide Congress with
information on the current status of the Open Air Burn Pit Registry, an
accounting of problems that have arisen during the development of the
registry, detailed information on remaining benchmarks to be completed
before the Open Air Burn Pit Registry will become fully operational, and
any information on how Congress can help to expedite the implementation
of this critical program."

On January 10, 2013, President
Barack Obama signed PL 112-260 into law. The law provided the VA one
year to develop, implement, and maintain an open burn pit registry of
service members and veterans who may have been exposed to toxic
chemicals and fumes from open air burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
registry has not yet been established.

We write to you today regarding
the failure of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to diligently and
expeditiously implement the Open Air Burn Pit Registry as mandated
under Section 201 of Public Law 112-260.

As you know from
previous correspondence on this matter, the Open Air Burn Pit Registry
was designed to identify and monitor veterans who had served in Iraq and
Afghanistan and who were exposed to toxic pollutants released by open
air burn pits. When President Obama signed PL 112-260 into law on
January 10, 2013, it provided the VA one year to develop, implement, and
maintain this registry. While the necessity for some delay is
understandable, the VA has failed to adequately explain why the delay
has occurred, which steps remain to be completed before the registry is
available for the use of our veterans, and provide specific information
on when the registry is expected to be completed.

This delay is
deeply concerning, particularly when similar registries exist within the
United States government. The lack of urgency and communication from
the VA is even more troubling. Our veterans, Congress, and the public
deserve to know why the Open Air Burn Pit Registry has been delayed and
when it will be completed. Furthermore, the VA has failed to develop the
Open Air Burn Pit Registry after multiple congressional inquiries and
letters calling for its timely creation and has not provided detailed
information regarding the nature of the delay to Congressional offices
who have requested such information.

In an effort to address
this failure, we ask that you provide Congress with information on the
current status of the Open Air Burn Pit Registry, an accounting of
problems that have arisen during the development of the registry,
detailed information on remaining benchmarks to be completed before the
Open Air Burn Pit Registry will become fully operational, and any
information on how Congress can help to expedite the implementation of
this critical program. We remain concerned about VA's implementation of
this program and we urge you to diligently complete the Open Air Burn
Pit Registry.

Thank you for your timely response to this matter and your continued service to our nation.

That's a CBS pilot being filmed. If the network likes it and thinks it could be a hit, they'll put it on the schedule.

I like Dylan McDermott (and thought he was great in Hostages) so between him and Maggie Q, this could be worth watching.

Now this is from the Kevin Gosztola article C.I. notes at the end of today's snapshot:

"Information
Clearing House - "Firedoglake"-
Kenneth Pollack, who has worked for the CIA and the
National Security Council, was a prime advocate for
the United States invasion and occupation of Iraq.
He published a book called “The Threatening Storm:
The Case for Invading Iraq” that was considered
widely to be a very convincing case that Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or was close
to obtaining them. But Pollack, like many other war
advocates who populated the airwaves of US media in
the months prior to invasion, was wrong.
As bloody
violence continues to erupt in Iraq, Pollack has not
stopped being an advocate of greater US involvement
or aid in Iraq, even though it has only helped to
enable Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to further
develop his brutal security forces.A senior
fellow for the Saban Center for Middle East Policy
at the Brookings Institution, he spoke before a
House Foreign Affairs subcommittee in December 2013
and declared, “It is a great credit to this
committee that at a time when the nation appears
determined to forget our interests in Iraq, you
refuse to do so. It is absolutely vital.”“Since
2003, the United States has invested an enormous
amount in Iraq, and the future of Iraq remains of
great importance to the interests of the United
States and our allies. Iraq has replaced Iran as the
second leading oil exporter in OPEC, and projections
of future low oil prices are highly contingent upon
the continued growth of Iraqi oil exports.
Remembering that virtually every postwar American
recession was preceded by an increase in oil prices,
Iraq and its oil production remain critical to the
prosperity of the United States,” he added.This was
his first expressed concern: the future of oil
production. He then proceeded to address the
resurgence of al Qaeda and other issues in Iraq.

Yep, it's anniversary time. The illegal war -- still ongoing -- is now eleven years old.

You don't hear much about it.

That's because it's a failure and the media's trying to sell you war on Ukraine and Syria so they don't want to cover the reality of Iraq.

No Elementary coverage from me tonight because it didn't air. CBS was airing the March Madness games instead.

Last thing I'll include,The Hollywood Reports notes Tracey Ullman will co-star in the CBS sitcom Good Sessions if the pilot is picked up.

Thursday, March 20, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, the assault on
Anbar continues, Tareq al-Hashemi calls thug Nouri out, the Al-Sweady
Inquiry hits a snag, when does the Kimberly Rivera inquiry begin or does
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel endorse those under him making up
their own rules?, and much more.

Starting in England where BBC reports, "A public inquiry into whether UK soldiers unlawfully killed Iraqi
civilians in 2004 has heard their relatives no longer believe there is
enough evidence to back the claims." This is the Al-Sweady Inquiry.
This is not the British's Iraq Inquiry -- whose results have still not
been released -- or the British inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa.
We covered those at length in multiple snapshots. We only noted the
Al-Sweady Inquiry March 4, 2013 and September 2013. From the first one:

The Metro reports,
"British troops killed, mutilated and tortured civilians following a
battle in Iraq, the start of an inquiry heard. Graphic images were
shown of missing eyes and genitals among the bodies of unarmed men who
were taken to an army base." What's going on? An inquiry known as the
Al-Sweady Inquiry, named after Iraqi Hamid al-Sweady, a 19-year-old
killed in May of 2004. Huffington Post UK reports, "The Al-Sweady Inquiry is examining claims that UK soldiers murdered 20
or more Iraqis and tortured detainees after the 'Battle of Danny Boy' in
Maysan Province, southern Iraq, in May 2004." Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) explains, "Nine Iraqis say they were tortured after being taken to a detention
centre at Shaibah base near Basra and held there for four months. They
say they were taken, along with the 20 murdered Iraqis, to a British
base, Camp Abu Naji, after a fierce firefight in what became known as
the battle of Danny Boy, a British military checkpoint near Majar al-Kabir, on 14 May 2004."

We covered the other two, utilizing the public transcripts (much more
utilized for the Iraq Inquiry) because they had strong merit. We didn't
cover Al-Sweady because the case seemed weak. Not false, but weak. If
we're going to focus on a trial or inquiry here and do multiple
snapshots on it, I have to feel it has a chance to go somewhere.
'They'll never win this,' isn't the concern so much as, 'They don't
have the evidence to make the case they're charging.' With Al-Sweady,
the evidence didn't seem strong enough to support the claims -- to me,
my opinion and I could be wrong and often am. But we have enough to
cover without me wasting my time on something I don't believe in. I
didn't feel a US trial that's just wrapped up in a plea bargain was
worth covering because the evidence seemed questionable. That's not a
judgment by me on whether or not it's 'worthy' for the attorneys to
pursue or whether it's an important issue. It is me looking at my time
and asking if it's worth covering? In the Al-Sweady case the answer was
"no."

So we didn't pay attention to this 42 week inquiry. Today ITV News leads
with, "Lawyers representing families of dead Iraqis admitted there was
'insufficient evidence' to back their claims British soldiers unlawfully
killed civilians nearly a decade ago." The Al-Sweady Inquiry notes
today:Public Interest Lawyers who act for the Iraqi Core Participants in
the Inquiry have today (Thursday 20 March 2014) made a statement that
they will not submit that, on the balance of probabilities, live Iraqis
captured during the course of the battle on 14 May 2004 died or were
killed at Camp Abu Naji. Following the conclusion of the majority of the
military evidence and current state of disclosure of MoD material, they
contend that there is insufficient material to establish that Iraqi
civilians were unlawfully killed whilst in the custody of British troops
at Camp Abu Naji. The allegations of mistreatment of Iraqi civilians in
British custody remain.It is for the Chairman to reach all conclusions and he will detail
findings of fact in his report. In so doing he will draw on all the
evidence he has seen and heard, including the statement made today by
the legal representatives for the Iraqi Core Participants.The Inquiry continues and will hear closing submissions from Core Participants on 16 April 2014.

Thereafter, the Chairman will write his report.

The admission does not mean the inquiry was a waste or that other things weren't established during it. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) reports:The bodies of the dead were taken to an Iraqi hospital the day after
the battle – in which weapons ranging from high-velocity rifles to fixed
bayonets, were used – the inquiry heard. Many of them were in a
horrific state, so horrific that the inquiry has said it will not
publish photographs of them.Some of the relatives of the dead
have alleged that they had been killed in the British camp. O'Connor
also conceded on Thursday that the detained Iraqis were not mistreated
in the British camp.The inquiry has also heard mounting evidence
that some Iraqis captured after the battle were mistreated by British
troops. Some soldiers admitted abusing their prisoners, some changed
their evidence. The inquiry also heard that commanders of the 1
Battalion Princess of Wales Royal Regiment obstructed attempts by the
military police to conduct its own inquiry.

So there was some abuse and that's now part of the public record. At
present, there is no proof that anyone was unlawfully killed. Both are
important. When abuses take place, they need to be noted. When abuses
don't take place but are charged, if the record doesn't back them up,
that needs to be noted as well.

Public
Interest Lawyers act for a number of Iraqi citizens who have long been
concerned about the circumstances in which family members were killed or
mistreated by British troops in May 2004 at Camp Abu Naji and Shaibah
Logistics Base.

In
November 2009 the setting up of a wide ranging Inquiry was announced to
examine those allegations of unlawful killing and mistreatment.

Following
the conclusion of the military evidence and current state of disclosure
by the MoD it is our view there is insufficient material to establish
that Iraqi civilians were unlawfully killed whilst in the custody of
British troops at Camp Abu Naji and we have advised the Inquiry of this
conclusion.

There
remain numerous allegations of violent and other ill-treatment of Iraqi
Civilians in British custody which the Inquiry will have to consider. John Dickinson of Public Interest Lawyers said that:

“From the outset the families have had the simple objective of discovering the
extent of any wrongdoing and if so how it came about and who was
responsible. It is accepted that on the material which has been
disclosed to date there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of
unlawful killing in Camp Abu Naji”

For more information please contact John Dickinson at Public Interest Lawyers:

The Associated Press notes, "Ten years ago: Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide rallied against
the U.S.-led war in Iraq on the first anniversary of the start of the
conflict." 964 Eagle adds,
"179 British servicemen and women died during operations there." The
number of US service members and military personnel the Dept of Defense
states died in the Iraq War is [PDF format warning]: 4489. Iraq Coalition Casualty Count lists 139 for "Other" countries who sent troops into Iraq. The number of Iraqis killed in the illegal war?

That's a tough one. For one thing, efforts were made to discredit the
accepted social science model when it was used for a study The Lancet carried which reported a million deaths. Information Clearing House notes, "Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered
In US War And Occupation Of Iraq '1,455,590'."

But the main problem with a body count? The war hasn't stopped in Iraq.

For Immediate ReleaseThe
U.S. Embassy in Baghdad strongly denounces the most recent series of
reprehensible acts of terrorism victimizing innocent Iraqi citizens throughout
country, including particularly brutal attacks in Hilla, Karbala, Wasit, Mosul,
Tuz Khormato, Baghdad, and Anbar. In recent weeks hundreds of Iraqis,
including women and children, have been killed or injured by terrorists who pursue
their goals through the senseless slaughter of the innocent.

We
extend our sincere condolences to the families of the victims and hope for a
rapid recovery for those who were injured. The United States stands with the
Iraqi people and will continue its robust support of the Government of Iraq in
its fight against terrorism.

They condemned terrorism. But not Nouri's terrorism. Still they
addressed Iraq which is far more than the US State Dept and the lazy ass
journalists attending today's State Dept press briefing bothered to do.

Apparently, they couldn't think of a question. NINA reports
the military shelling of residential neighborhoods in Falluja left ten
civilians ("including three children") injured. Maybe the reporters
present could have asked just how many civilians are going to be killed
or wounded by Nouri with weapons the US provides?

Maybe they could have asked spokesperson Jen Psaki exactly how long the
administration intends to pretend that Nouri's actions aren't War
Crimes?

Today, the Council on Foreign Relation's Gayle Tzemach Lemmon quotes former US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker declaring, "What we have got is a
country that is facing huge internal as well as external challenges and
needs the engagement that we effectively promised them through these
(Strategic Framework) agreements, through our actions, through our
efforts to create for them institutions that are not yet ready to
function completely on their own. We have decided we are out, goodbye
and good luck. Well, that may not have a happy ending."

If only, Ryan Crocker, if only.

Walking away and washing hands of Iraq would be more humane than arming Nouri with weapons to use against the Iraqi people."

Each day brings injuries and deaths to the citizens in Falluja and
Ramadi whose 'crime' is having a home there. It's a War Crime to use
Collective Punishment (in this case suspecting terrorists are in Falluja
-- a populated city -- or Ramadi -- also a populated city -- so bombing
the whole cities to 'get' the terrorists).

Silence is endorsing the War Crimes, silence on the part of the Americans, silence on the part of the world.

The US government arms Nouri -- US President Barack Obama strong-armed Congress to go along
-- and he uses those weapons to terrorize and kill the Iraqi people.

The
video shows a male corpse lying in the dirt, one end of a rope tied
around his legs, the other fastened to the back of an armoured Humvee.Men in Iraqi military uniforms mingle by the vehicle.
Someone warns there might be a bomb on the body. One hands another his
smartphone. Then he stands over the body, smiles, and offers a thumbs-up
as his comrade takes a photo. The Humvee starts to move, dragging the
dead man behind it into the desert.The short video was shown to Reuters last week by an Iraqi
national police officer. It captures what appear to be Iraqi soldiers
desecrating the corpse of a fighter from the Islamic State of Iraq and
Levant (ISIL), a group reconstituted from an earlier incarnation of al
Qaeda in Iraq.

And that video is only one example of many more. They've been surfacing for some time. The one from the January 31st snapshot continues to haunt me:On YouTube video has surfaced of Nouri's forces
today . . . next to a man being burned alive. Did they set the Sunni
male on fire? It appears they're not concerned with putting out the
fire so it's fair to conclude they started it. It's the sort of
government cruelty that's led Iraqis to protest in the first place.

It continues to haunt me but apparently not those who attend the State
Dept press briefings since no one's bothered to ask about it.

Instead, they melt into the US government, meld with it, and pretend
that crazy Nouri al-Maliki -- pedophile, chief thug and prime minister
of Iraq (installed by Bully Boy Bush in 2006, Barack violated the Iraqi
Constitution to give Nouri a second term in 2010 after Nouri lost the
election to Ayad Allawi) -- isn't crazy and that he's not the
terrorist.

In the real world, Ma'ad Fayad (Asharq Al-Awsat) reports:The Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG),
Nechervan Barzani, has expressed surprise at comments made earlier this
month by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, in which he accused Saudi
Arabia of sponsoring terrorism in Iraq. Speaking exclusively to Asharq Al-Awsat via telephone from
Erbil on Tuesday, Barzani said: “What are the reasons behind the
accusations at this specific time? . . . We have not seen evidence of
Saudi sponsorship of terrorism in Iraq before, and we have not seen any
evidence proving Saudi responsibility for recruiting or assisting
terrorist organizations or groups there.”

Where are those reasons behind the accusations? Nouri was supposed to provide proof.

Last Thursday, Nouri wrapped up his failed, two-day security conference. And did so without proof.

Last week, Anadolu Agency reported that
Qassem Atta was telling the press, "Iraq will present evidence [of
countries supporting terrorism] to conference participants, with
lawsuits being a possibility." Poor Atta, head of the committee that
did the prep work for the failed conference and now Nouri's also made
him a public liar.

No proof was offered.

Arab News reported
earlier this week, "Saudi Arabia on Monday denounced Iraqi Prime
Minister Nuri Al-Maliki for accusing the Kingdom of being involved in
terrorism, and said the embattled leader was only trying to cover up for
his government’s failures and support for terrorist operations in his
own country."

Some of the Arabs, including those from the Gulf, participated in the
conference despite calls for a boycott. This is unfortunate, as well as
surprising, after Al-Maliki made an unprecedented and explicit
accusation against Saudi Arabia and Qatar regarding their alleged
involvement in terrorism in Iraq. These participants have lost a lot and
have angered their Arab brothers who are being persecuted by Al-Maliki
and who had hoped for them to take a position that reinforces their
perseverance and gives them hope. This is especially true of the Sunni
Arabs from the Anbar tribes in Ramadi and Fallujah who are being
targeted by Al-Maliki's weapons and war planes day and night. In the
case of such countries, fear drove them to attend the conference and
please Al-Maliki instead of sympathising with the tribes and people who
are being exposed to his discriminatory and sectarian policies.

The conference, in terms of appearance and content, did not present
anything new; even its final recommendations were merely a regurgitation
of exhausted proposals and ideas. As such, it can be said that the
get-together was just a public relations exercise with specific
objectives, beginning with whitewashing Al-Maliki and his fascist
regime's criminal record, but he was unable to achieve this. The second
objective was to gather as much international support as possible in
order to back him in his failed military campaign in Anbar. Thirdly, it
was intended to silence the opposition abroad because any opposition to
Nouri Al-Maliki is classified as "terrorism" by him. Finally, it was
intended to create some hope that he will not be prosecuted for the
crimes he has committed in the past and continues to commit, including
crimes against humanity. There are increasing complaints from
international human rights organisations and the EU about his actions.

Let's pause on Nouri's embarrassing failures and note what the conference came up with on their last day. NINA explains,
"Baghdad first international anti-terrorism conference [. . .]
recommended the conclusion of its works on Thursday to promote
international cooperation, exchange of information, to respond to the
demands of countries to handover of criminals, cooperation and take
necessary measures to dying terrorism resources."That's it?A two-day conference and all they can come up with is: Exchange phone numbers? Most people can accomplish that within ten minutes of entering a bar.Two days to get digits on a cocktail napkin?Even when you look for a Nouri success, you still come up with failure.

$100 million to exchange phone numbers.

Chair Bernie Sanders: I've been Chairman of the Senate Committee for a
little over a year and the one thing that I've learned is that the cost
of war is a lot higher than I think most Americans understand: the
people who return come back with a host of issues. Their families have
problems that I think many of our fellow Americans don't understand. So
let me just touch on some of the things we have done in the past and
where we want to go in the future. There was, as you know, an effort
to take away a COLA from military retirees. Congress dealt with most of
that -- retracted that error. But there still is a problem that for
those people in the military now, they will not get the COLA that the
veterans -- other veterans -- are getting. We are working to make sure
that we address a problem that I know is particularly of concern to the
paralyzed veterans, but to all veterans, and that is that some of you
will recall that a couple of years ago, Congress did the right thing by
passing a Caregivers Act. All of you familair with that? Very
significant step. But what we did not do, is we passed that for the
post-9/11 veterans -- a good step forward -- but not for the veterans of
all generations. And what that means now is that today sitting in
California or New York or any place else, there is a 70-year-old woman
taking care of a Vietnam vet who was injured in that war. She deserves
support. She doesn't get it now and we want to address that issue by
expanding the Caregivers Act -- something we heard from many of the
organizations. One of the issues that, uhm, I feel strongly about and I
know many of the veterans organizations feel strongly about is the
issue of understanding that dental care is part of health care. And for
many, many years, as a nation -- and within the VA -- we said, 'This is
health care, this is dental care, we're going to cover health care not
cover dental care.' I think the time is now to begin to address that
issue and -- at least in a pilot program -- make dental care accessible
to veterans other than those who just have service connected problems.
All of us have been concerned about the benefits backlogs. We're going
to stay on that, put more demands on the VA so that they fulfill their
goal of ending the backlog by the end of 2015. [. . .] One of the great
disgraces that we have experienced as a nation in recent years is the
issue of sexual assault in the military. We are all ashamed about that.
We want the DoD to address it as boldly as they can but we also want
to make sure that when women and men leave the service, they get the
kind of compassionate care for sexual assault that they need in the VA.
Another issue that is out there, from Iraq and Afghanistan veterans
some 2,300 men and women were wounded in war in ways that make it
impossible for them to have children. They are entitled to have
families through in vitro fertilization or adoption or other approaches.

That's Senator Bernie Sanders from last Wednesday's joint hearing held
by the Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committee. Sanders comments
note some of the issues effecting those the US government deployed to
Iraq (and to Afghanistan). The government quickly sent them but it
hasn't quickly addressed their issues, has it?

Senator Johnny Isakson was at the hearing and he noted that
Post-Traumatic Stress and TBI are the "bad legacies of the Iraqi and
Afghanistan Wars" for veterans. He noted other things as wll.

Ranking Member Johnny Isakson: Secondly, several of you have written
about the incredible need to for better access to effective mental
treatment for veterans. 8,000 veterans a year are taking their life, 22
a day. The Chairman was kind enough to grant me the right to hold a
field hearing in Atlanta last August and we had a two-and-one-half-hour
meeting with about 300 people present talking about the problems with
suicide. The IG's report on the Atlanta VA tied mismanagement at the VA
to three of the particular suicides at the VA in Atlanta and that's
intolerable. The new director, Leslie Wiggins, is doing a great job of
holding the VA accountable in Atlanta and we need to learn from that
experience because that's not a problem that's just related to Atlanta,
Georgia -- it's related to the entire VA delivery system.

While it's great that veterans needs are noted (be great if their needs
were addressed and not just noted), it's amazing how no one wants to
champion the war resister.

They're not veterans, they've been stripped of that status. If they're
thrown in prison, they're actually under the Armed Services Committees
in the House and Senate. So where's the investigation and concern?

Kim Rivera served in Iraq, came back to the US, decided to self-check
out while in Texas and went to Canada with her husband and their
children. She was seeking asylum. She did not receive it. Instead,
Canada forced her out, while she was pregnant and she was thrown behind
bars in a US prison. At this point, some people reading will be
cheering. I support war resisters but not everyone who reads the
snapshot does.

So my challenge to those who don't is, do you think it's okay for Kim or
anyone else to be mistreated by the military while they're behind bars?
That is what happened.

Later in her pregnancy, Kimberly challenged her jailers for violating
their own SOPs, refusing her the option of lying down, eating more
healthful foods, occasionally removing her heavy outer uniform and
avoiding work that would make her nauseated or dizzy.“In the last month of my pregnancy, they finally put a restriction on
my medical order that allowed me to lay down two hours a day. I wrote a
big long complaint to the C.O. and the commander came to see me. He was
ready for a fight.”Kimberly’s commander told her he had the power to pick and choose
which pregnancy SOPs to follow because she was not having any serious
complications. When Kimberly countered that those SOPs were in place to
avoid a complicated pregnancy, the commander said he would talk to the
medical department, but nothing improved.The Riveras’ ordeal only tightened when Kimberly went into labor. A
female staff sergeant insisted she remain in the room to supervise her
prisoner during the birth, despite Kimberly’s requests for privacy. “She had three meals brought to her and ate in my room,” recalls
Kimberly. “It was very disrespectful and unprofessional. If you are
undergoing any treatment, other people do not need to be there.”The sergeant’s presence—and refusal to let Kimberly close her bed
curtain—made it difficult for Kimberly to push for her husband to be
allowed to be present for the birth, as per the approval of the
commander.

“They wouldn’t let me in the room to see Kim or the baby,” says
Mario. “I heard the Staff Sgt. talking to one of the lieutenants and
some hospital staff about making me leave the premises and trying to
figure out how to give Kim more of a hard time.”

Chuck Hagel should hang his head in shame. He's the US Secretary of
Defense, this was published over a week ago, he should have been aware
of it and had a public response by now.

But he's offered nothing.

And I'm sorry to break it to you, but rules are supposed to be sacred in
the military. The fact that this administration and the previous one
bred and encouraged contempt for those who took an ethical stand against
an illegal war does not allow the rules to be broken.

People should be punished for what they did to Kim.

The military should be embarrassed. Not just because it was harmful to
Kim but also because you have people in the military who are not
following the rules and think they can do whatever they want. That's
insubordination.

Hagel should be alarmed that it happened and launching an investigation to find out how high it went.

Those who want to say war resisters deserve to be tossed in prison
because they broke the law by walking away? Well you can make that case
but it doesn't let you excuse what was done to Kim?

There is no excuse. And Hagel should be very concerned about what this
says about the health of the military today. And Barack should stop
posturing and pretending he gives a damn about women. He so obviously
doesn't [see "Whose hands are clean in The War On Women (Ava and C.I."]. And the treatment of Kim, made public March 10th, didn't result in one word from him or his spokesperson Jay Carney .

Rodney Watson continues to resist. In Canada, Iraq War veteran Rodney continues to hope for asylum. Yolande Cole (Georgia Straight -- link has text and video) reported in 2011 that it was a little over two years since the US war resister, on the verge of
being deported (September 2009), sought refuge at First United
Church in Vancouver with his wife and son. He states, "I've been
through a lot in my life, and this has been one of the hardest things
I've been through, being stuck in these walls. The hardest thing about
being stuck here is waving to my wife and son . . . every time they got
to the store, or to family dinners, outings, to the park . . . the
hardest part for me is saying good-bye." Derrick O'Keefe (Vancouver Observer) reports on Rodney today:

“I saw fellow soldiers depressed or
suicidal because they didn’t want to be there, so I felt like there was
no way for me to get out, except to go AWOL. I would have stayed in the
military if there was a real reason for me to be there, but I felt in my
heart and soul that it was not worth me killing or dying for lies.”

That’s
why he came to Canada. Here, Rodney found work, got married and had a
son. Then, in 2009, he got a letter ordering him to leave Canada -- no
later than September 11.

“September 11th
was [one of the main] reasons I’d signed up,” Rodney explains. “So when
I got the letter in the mail telling me they wanted me to leave my wife
and my son, it just felt like a giant slap in the face -- my son [was] a
newborn and I love my family and I don’t want to leave them.” The raw
emotion of that moment is still evident on his face and in his voice.

That’s
when he made the choice to claim sanctuary at First United, so as to
avoid removal by Canadian authorities. Four and a half years later, he
hasn’t moved. But neither have the politicians in Ottawa.

We've squeezed in as much as we can. Kevin Gosztola has a piece on the illegal war here and Patrick Cockburn has one here.

Followers

About Me

I'm Michael, Mike to my friends. College student working his way through. I'm also Irish-American and The New York Times can kiss my Irish ass. And check out Trina's Kitchen on my links, that's my mother's site.